-
Let's assume that the "no opposites" rule is in effect.
If the password was KNIGHT, would it be acceptable to say "DAY"? Technically, it's not an opposite, but at the same time, you may throw your partner off by going for an opposite when opposites aren't allowed.
-
Not having any connection with the show, I can't offer a definitive answer. But are "Day" and "Knight" opposites?
I don't see why it would be illegal at all. It would definitely throw off your partner, though, so I'd consider it too much of a risk to try that as your first clue.
-
Why not just say "darkness" for "knight"
-
There was an episode where this exact thing happened with Loretta Swit in 1979. And the no opposites rule was used at that point. The last word was 'knight' and she said day as a clue, but the contestant didn't get it anyway because they ran out of time as the word 'day' was said. Loretta was worried at first that it would have been illegal, but Allen realized that because of the direct spelling of it, it would have been allowed anyway.
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'Aug 7 2005, 02:36 AM\']If the password was KNIGHT, would it be acceptable to say "DAY"?
[/quote]
My ruling would be, if it were patently obvious that you were trying to skirt the rule by using the opposite of a homophone, you would be buzzed. If you said ANYTHING with the "opposite" vocal inflection, you would DEFINITELY be buzzed.
And if you tried to slip through an opposite clue without using the "opposite" inflection, well, then you just deserve what you get, because that's just begging to befuddle the hell out of your partner.
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 7 2005, 06:54 AM\']Why not just say "darkness" for "knight"
[/quote]
Because your partner might then respond "CHARLIE MURPHY!!!"
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 7 2005, 01:39 PM\']Because your partner might then respond "CHARLIE MURPHY!!!"
[snapback]93546[/snapback]
[/quote]
Line of the day...I knew SOMEONE would make a reference. :-)
ObGameShow: "Chappelle's Show" did a game show sketch called "I Know Black People".
-
I think to play a homophonic word in that manner is a smart play that many contestants on Password Plus would never think of, and if they would play the word that way, it should be allowed. But.
Unless the contestant was working with a numbnuts celebrity, this was probably a bad idea because the celeb would know the no opposites rule and would probably guess something along another line.
-
[quote name=\'mitchgroff\' date=\'Aug 7 2005, 12:36 PM\']I think to play a homophonic word in that manner is a smart play
[/quote]
To play for a homophone? Yes. To give an "opposite" clue in such a way that doesn't let your partner know that the clue you are giving is in fact opposite? HORRIBLE idea.
-
My ruling would be, if it were patently obvious that you were trying to skirt the rule by using the opposite of a homophone, you would be buzzed. If you said ANYTHING with the "opposite" vocal inflection, you would DEFINITELY be buzzed.
And that is why you will never judge a game show (God forbid).
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 7 2005, 11:23 PM\']And that is why you will never judge a game show (God forbid).
[/quote]
Fine, Mr. Password. What's the correct ruling, then?
-
"Day" is not the opposite of "knight" so it's allowed. Just hope that your partner makes the connection after the clues "armor" and "shining".
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 8 2005, 10:20 AM\']"Day" is not the opposite of "knight" so it's allowed.
[/quote]
Fair enough. That seems awfully weenie to me in a phonetic game that specifically forbids opposite clues by rule, tho.
So, since it's "not an opposite", would the player be permitted to use the rising opposite vocal inflection to give that clue, as well?
Just hope that your partner makes the connection after the clues "armor" and "shining".
Herein my point. If you're allowed to use the traditional vocal inflection along with that, there's no way I DON'T make that connection, even if the first two clues were "red" and "fruit". 'Cuz when I hear that clue I'm going to completely wipe the other ones out of my head and go with the obvious answer, unless my partner is McLean Stevenson and known to be a complete ninny. And even then I would prolly give him the benefit.
It merely seems to me that if you are going to forbid opposites, you'd want to do so in a way that doesn't make your viewer say "hey, if opposites are illegal, why did they just get to use one?"
-
I remember when Tom Kennedy was hosting, the password was "day" (I think) and someone said "(k)night" as a clue, and the judges automatically assumed that the clue giver said "knight". In cases like this, the clue giver was given the benefit of the doubt. This brings me to a similar incident on "Super Password" during the second "Tournament of Losers" in 1986. In one bonus round, Constance McCashin was faced with the password "often" and she said what I thought was the clue "a lot" and I thought she was going to get flagged for an illegal clue. It was some time later, while taking a business education class in college, that I saw the word "allot" in that class, and then it hit me. Constance could have said the word "allot" instead of "a lot", and she was given the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately Bert Convy never explained this ruling to the home audience.
-
[quote name=\'mbclev\' date=\'Aug 8 2005, 10:46 PM\']Constance could have said the word "allot" instead of "a lot", and she was given the benefit of the doubt[/quote]
But, in a display of unmitigated inconsistency, someone else on SP saw the Password "Vegas", and gave the clue "Las...", but said it with a short A sound, so the receiver would know know not to say "Angeles". It was promptly ruled illegal, even though the clue as given was aurally indistinguishable from the bona fide English word "lass".
-
If you're allowed to use the traditional vocal inflection along with that, there's no way I DON'T make that connection
You've read the rules, figure it out. If the rules were written to exclude all "acting" from Password you would have rather dull game play, and dull does not translate to ratings.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 02:09 AM\']You've read the rules, figure it out. If the rules were written to exclude all "acting" from Password you would have rather dull game play, and dull does not translate to ratings.
[/quote]
I don't see where acting enters into it. The question is a matter of whether the rule is "Thou shalt not give a clue that is a direct opposite of the Password as printed" or "Thou shalt not give clues that are intended to be interpreted as an opposite." Apparently it's the former, and that's all fine and good, but I think the latter would have made for less confusion. That's all.
-
[quote name=\'mbclev\' date=\'Aug 9 2005, 12:46 AM\']I remember when Tom Kennedy was hosting, the password was "day" (I think) and someone said "(k)night" as a clue, and the judges automatically assumed that the clue giver said "knight". In cases like this, the clue giver was given the benefit of the doubt.
[snapback]93684[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not that I'm trying to stir up trouble many years after the fact, but how exactly did the judges "automatically assume" that? That seems very fishy, because unless you go out of your way to pronounce the "k" in "knight" (making it an illegal clue anyway, as the resulting sound is not a word), there's no way for the judges to assume that what the clue giver said was indeed "knight."
Doug -- and the countdown to 1400 continues
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 07:19 AM\']That seems very fishy, because unless you go out of your way to pronounce the "k" in "knight" (making it an illegal clue anyway, as the resulting sound is not a word), there's no way for the judges to assume that what the clue giver said was indeed "knight."
[/quote]
Silly English knnnnnnnniggits!
/mother was a hamster
//father smelt of elderberries
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 01:17 PM\']Silly English knnnnnnnniggits!
[snapback]93803[/snapback]
[/quote]
Just as long as you don't start saying "ni" all the time. :)
I saw Spamalot during its trial run here before it went on to New York. Funny stuff, and well deserving of the honors it got.
Doug -- and the countdown to 1400 continues
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 01:17 PM\']
[/quote]
Silly English knnnnnnnniggits!
/mother was a hamster
//father smelt of elderberries
[snapback]93803[/snapback]
[/quote]
No one suspects the Lemon Inquisition...except those with 3/4 a brain or more in these parts.
It's a touchy rule, saying "knight" as an opposite of "day" and that's one of the drawbacks to the opposites not allowed game play. I mean opposites not allowed does allow for more intellectual gameplay in some instances, but they ditched it in Convy's version because...heh...it must have killed too many celebrity brain cells.
And now for something completely different...
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 12:20 PM\']I saw Spamalot during its trial run here before it went on to New York. Funny stuff, and well deserving of the honors it got.
[/quote]
I am hoping like hell that someone has the brilliance and financial backing to put together a travelling cast for Spamalot the way they did for Phantom and what-not. I would LOVE to see that here in Seattle.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 03:07 PM\']I am hoping like hell that someone has the brilliance and financial backing to put together a travelling cast for Spamalot the way they did for Phantom and what-not. I would LOVE to see that here in Seattle.
[snapback]93816[/snapback]
[/quote]
Can't speak for tour dates in Seattle, but a tour is planned (only Boston, Washington [DC] and a return trip to Chicago are confirmed, but no casting as yet). Source: here (http://\"http://www.playbill.com/news/article/94126.html\").
Doug -- and the countdown to 1400 continues
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 03:07 PM\'][quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 12:20 PM\']I saw Spamalot during its trial run here before it went on to New York. Funny stuff, and well deserving of the honors it got.
[/quote]
I am hoping like hell that someone has the brilliance and financial backing to put together a travelling cast for Spamalot the way they did for Phantom and what-not. I would LOVE to see that here in Seattle.
[snapback]93816[/snapback]
[/quote]
It'll likely happen. Just not yet.
Touring companies usually go out 1-2 years after a debut..... Wicked is the next big tour to commence....Hairspray is out there for the first time as well....
(And , if you like Rock and Roll, Hairspray is HIGHLY recommended).
-
how exactly did the judges "automatically assume" that? That seems very fishy, because unless you go out of your way to pronounce the "k" in "knight" (making it an illegal clue anyway, as the resulting sound is not a word), there's no way for the judges to assume that what the clue giver said was indeed "knight."
It's B.S., and I don't mean the producer's initials.
Bobby Sherman and Howard Felsher decided to do Password without a word authority. When Bobby was asleep at the switch and failed to buzz a clue such as that one, he had to come up with a CYA explanation.
So you have a situation where it is permissible to give "day" as a clue for "knight", but not "knight" as a clue for "day". I can just hear the vein in Lemon's forehead throbbing.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 04:15 PM\']I can just hear the vein in Lemon's forehead throbbing.
[/quote]
Naw, I'm good. I made it through two seasons of half-assed judging on the Osmond Pyramid, I can certainly handle this, so long as we're all open about what it is. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 10:33 PM\']
Naw, I'm good. I made it through two seasons of half-assed judging on the Osmond Pyramid, I can certainly handle this, so long as we're all open about what it is. :)
[snapback]93844[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's one of the two things that really got to me about Osmond's Pyramid. Way too strict in judgment.
-
[quote name=\'$100kPyramidfan\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 07:37 PM\']That's one of the two things that really got to me about Osmond's Pyramid. Way too strict in judgment.
[/quote]
Holy good god WOW.
What Osmond Pyramid were you watching? Marie's? Merle's?
-
That and the gameplay was too rushed.
-
I believe, Chris, he was watching illegitimate brother Tito's Pyramid.
-
Of course nothing compares to the classic versions, but I thought that 2002-2004 Pyramid did have a FEW good points. I was impressed with the wide range of stars they had. Everybody from soaps to sitcom stars to broadway and even Jared Fogle, lol! Fogle, why? I'll never know. They even had the master himself Dick Clark play (too bad he and Donny never got to switch places for an episode). And I was really impressed with Donny's hosting abilities, when they first mentioned a new Pyramid with him hosting I was like "what were they thinking?!" But I thought I might've been wrong after seeing him for the first few shows.
-
[quote name=\'$100kPyramidfan\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 08:30 PM\']I was impressed with the wide range of stars they had. Everybody from soaps to sitcom stars to broadway and even Jared Fogle, lol!
[/quote]
...about four of which who could play the game worth a damn at all...
And I was really impressed with Donny's hosting abilities,
You MUST be a troll.
-
No, no, no... I'm a nice guy once you get to know me. I just want to have fun here and get involved in some good old fashioned discussion about game shows is all.
(And by the way, I know Donny Osmond is no Dick Clark, of course I do!)
-
[quote name=\'$100kPyramidfan\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 08:45 PM\']No, no, no... I'm a nice guy once you get to know me. I just want to have fun here and get involved in some good old fashioned discussion about game shows is all.
[/quote]
Then, while you are certainly allowed to have an opinion, you might do well to listen a while and figure out which ones will get you ridiculed and which ones will not.
-
Come now, Chris. Thinking someone is a good game show host is hardly something to ridicule another for. Besides, being entitled to an opinion implies that they WON'T be ridiculed for it, does it not?
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 10:09 PM\']Come now, Chris. Thinking someone is a good game show host is hardly something to ridicule another for. Besides, being entitled to an opinion implies that they WON'T be ridiculed for it, does it not?
[/quote]
"Patrick Wayne's work on TTD '90 was terribly underrated."
"Patty Deutch was a genius Match Game player."
"Ruckus is an exceptional cerebral challenge."
"Boy, I bet that Allen Ludden was a peach of a guy, since he was so nice onscreen."
Shall I go on?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 10:31 PM\']"Patrick Wayne's work on TTD '90 was terribly underrated."[/quote]
If Patrick Wayne gives them a boner, that's their business.
"Patty Deutch was a genius Match Game player."
This isn't opinion. It's a fact that can be proved incorrect. Flame away.
"Ruckus is an exceptional cerebral challenge."
For SOME people, it is. Flame at your discretion.
"Boy, I bet that Allen Ludden was a peach of a guy, since he was so nice onscreen."
Sheer naive theory, not opinion. Flame away.
My point stands.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 10:37 PM\']My point stands.
[/quote]
Well, no, but whatever floats your boat, pal. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 10:56 PM\'][quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 10:37 PM\']My point stands.
[/quote]
Well, no, but whatever floats your boat, pal. :)
[snapback]93874[/snapback]
[/quote]
I know better than to carry on a debate with you past the smiley. :)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 09:37 PM\'][quote name=\'$100kPyramidfan\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 07:37 PM\']That's one of the two things that really got to me about Osmond's Pyramid. Way too strict in judgment.
[/quote]
Holy good god WOW.[/quote]
It depended on what was being judged. Not taking "Things in the White House" for "Rooms in the White House" was way too strict.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 14 2005, 03:00 PM\']It depended on what was being judged. Not taking "Things in the White House" for "Rooms in the White House" was way too strict.
[/quote]
Okay, I suppose that's true. But allowing Hal Sparks to write a goddamn book full of prepositional phrases was NOT strict.
So the game was strict where it shouldn't have been, and lenient where it shouldn't have been.
I think we can all agree "the judging blew" and leave it at that. :)
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Aug 10 2005, 09:19 AM\'][quote name=\'mbclev\' date=\'Aug 9 2005, 12:46 AM\']I remember when Tom Kennedy was hosting, the password was "day" (I think) and someone said "(k)night" as a clue, and the judges automatically assumed that the clue giver said "knight". In cases like this, the clue giver was given the benefit of the doubt.
[snapback]93684[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not that I'm trying to stir up trouble many years after the fact, but how exactly did the judges "automatically assume" that? That seems very fishy, because unless you go out of your way to pronounce the "k" in "knight" (making it an illegal clue anyway, as the resulting sound is not a word), there's no way for the judges to assume that what the clue giver said was indeed "knight."
Doug -- and the countdown to 1400 continues
[snapback]93773[/snapback]
[/quote]
I remember Tom Kennedy actually saying essentially that the judges automatically assumed that the clue giver was saying "knight" instead of "night", as opposed to Bert Convy not saying that Constance McCashin said "allot" instead of "a lot" in 1986.
-
[quote name=\'mbclev\' date=\'Aug 15 2005, 12:28 AM\']I remember Tom Kennedy actually saying essentially that the judges automatically assumed that the clue giver was saying "knight" instead of "night", as opposed to Bert Convy not saying that Constance McCashin said "allot" instead of "a lot" in 1986.
[snapback]94180[/snapback]
[/quote]
My point still stands. It was an absolutely awful judging decision if it happened exactly as you said. And it's still a fishy scenario--I still find no possible way you can "automatically assume" that. Most likely it's what Chris said--Sherman was asleep at the switch.
Doug -- and the countdown to 1400 continues
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 14 2005, 05:00 PM\']It depended on what was being judged. Not taking "Things in the White House" for "Rooms in the White House" was way too strict.
[snapback]94166[/snapback]
[/quote]
"Rooms" is a lot more specific than "things," so I wouldn't disagree with the judging. It's simply a lousy category.
So to amend the earlier point, "the judging AND the writing blew."
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 15 2005, 09:52 AM\']So to amend the earlier point, "the judging AND the writing blew."
[snapback]94197[/snapback]
[/quote]
Winner's Circle category: What Regis Philbin's Coffee Cup Might Say, and What Tom Cruise's Dentist Might Say. Enough said.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 15 2005, 09:52 AM\']"Rooms" is a lot more specific than "things," so I wouldn't disagree with the judging. It's simply a lousy category.[/quote]
IMO, the judge should realize at that point that it's a lousy category, and give the contestant credit.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 17 2005, 02:34 PM\']IMO, the judge should realize at that point that it's a lousy category, and give the contestant credit.
[/quote]
Well, except that's not really his job. His job, in that situation, is to determine whether an answer is acceptable, no more, no less. If the writers wrote it that way, and it made it through the review process, I would have to guess that the judge was specifically told that "rooms" was a keyword, just as "White House" was.
Not defending the utter absurdity of the category, or the overly-lenient judging of given clues, but a judge who makes editorial decisions like that in the throes of battle isn't a judge for very long, I would guess.
-
I was operating under the assumption that Pyramid categories never came anywhere near a review process.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Aug 18 2005, 11:55 PM\']I was operating under the assumption that Pyramid categories never came anywhere near a review process.
[snapback]94595[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh! When I first posted on the thread here about Osmond's Pyramid, the inane categories at the WC completely whooshed over my head. That was a third thing that I couldn't stand about it that I had never even thought of at the time!
The worst one I can think on top of my head at the moment is "What Fidel Castro's cigar would say." What were they thinking?!
-
[quote name=\'$100kPyramidfan\' date=\'Aug 18 2005, 09:07 PM\']"What Fidel Castro's cigar would say."
[snapback]94598[/snapback]
[/quote]
"I'm in the mouth of a famous Cuban."
"What Lucille Ball's left tit might say."
-
Without getting into any real-name specifics (though many of you know the real people involved), the judge and the writers on Osmond Pyramid were at the mercy of a producer whose apparent sole goal was to make his Pyramid different than any previous incarnations. I can tell you with certainty that the Pyramid judge (who was also a writer) is and was every bit as aware of the Clark version as you goombas, and he agonized over some of the judging calls he was required to make.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Aug 19 2005, 08:10 AM\']I can tell you with certainty that the Pyramid judge (who was also a writer) is and was every bit as aware of the Clark version as you goombas
[/quote]
Are you really gonna make me change my title to "Evil Goomba"? :)
-
I retract any aspersions I may have cast in the direction of the Pyramid judge.
Fie on you, Pyramid. Fie on your camera angles, fie on your celeb "training", fie on your Ben-Stein-Lite maingame.
-
Producer might not be a bad job to have; you get paid a lot of money; you've got a lot of power to shape a show and when it goes south, it's usually the on-camera people that get the blame. You can leave it off the resume because the credits at the end of the show are unreadable or go by too fast.
Even game show freaks refer to it as "Osmond Pyramid" rather than "(producer's name) Pyramid"
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Aug 21 2005, 06:54 AM\']Even game show freaks refer to it as "Osmond Pyramid" rather than "(producer's name) Pyramid"
[/quote]
Believe me, I wouldn't mind knowing his name so I could refer to it as "(producer's name) Pyramid". Just so I'm reminded of who he is so I can avoid his crap in the future.
-
I'll help narrow the search (http://\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324893/fullcredits#producers\") down, but in the meantime, I'll just conveniently blame all of 'em.
-
Let's just say his last name is the color of poo.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Aug 21 2005, 01:41 PM\']Let's just say his last name is the color of poo.
[/quote]
But I don't see a Green...um. Erm.
(Clearly I need to ease up on the spinach.) :)
-
Interesting, the producer whose last name is, uh, the color of some poo, worked on the 1997 Newlywed Game, which also screwed with everything for no good reason.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Aug 21 2005, 10:05 PM\']Interesting, the producer whose last name is, uh, the color of some poo, worked on the 1997 Newlywed Game, which also screwed with everything for no good reason.
[snapback]94724[/snapback]
[/quote]
Zach time, but the screw-with-it-just-to-screw-with-it version was actually the season before (three couples instead of four, pre-recorded answers instead of the cards, "THAT'S MY WIFE!"), which, I *think* was produced by Michael Canter (he also did the first couple seasons of Feud99). They tried to get back to the "classic" version in 1997. Not surprisingly, IMDB doesn't even mention the 1996 season.
Ewww, I just HAD a shower. :-P
-
Back to the Password Legal Clue Thread...
When did "singing" a clue word become the norm on the show and who first did it? I see/hear it a lot on SP but was it permissible on P+?
And what are your opinions on Singing Clues, in which you sing one clue word over several words of a song?
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Aug 22 2005, 10:24 AM\']Back to the Password Legal Clue Thread...
When did "singing" a clue word become the norm on the show and who first did it? I see/hear it a lot on SP but was it permissible on P+?
[snapback]94752[/snapback]
[/quote]
I remember it done at least once on a recent GSN P+ airing.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Aug 21 2005, 11:12 PM\']Zach time, but the screw-with-it-just-to-screw-with-it version was actually the season before (three couples instead of four, pre-recorded answers instead of the cards, "THAT'S MY WIFE!"), which, I *think* was produced by Michael Canter (he also did the first couple seasons of Feud99).
[snapback]94725[/snapback]
[/quote]
Thanks for the correction. I hadn't remembered "That's my wife!" Maybe that's where TPIR got the idea for "That's Too Much!" although probably not.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Aug 22 2005, 08:24 AM\']And what are your opinions on Singing Clues, in which you sing one clue word over several words of a song?
[snapback]94752[/snapback]
[/quote]
I see no harm in it. I think it's a good strategy if you get a word like "Susannah" or "Sharona."